Does a Fixed Civil Judgment Rendered in Mainland China and Recognized by a Taiwanese Court have any Impact on Taiwan's Legal System?

經臺灣法院裁定認可確定之大陸民事確定裁判是否有既判力?若依最高法院96年度臺上字第2531號判決及97年度臺上字第2376號判決之見解,則為否定,並無例外,其主要理由是法律並無明文規定,然此二則判決與學者通說及向來實務作法不同。本文認此為臺灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例立法者之遺漏,而屬法律漏洞,基於同一法律理由,應類推適用民事訴訟法第402條之規定及仲裁法第37條第1項規定,並不一律否定有既判力。又自既判力之本質而言,經大陸法院程序保障後作成之裁判,應有既判力。而自兩岸司法互助之層面而言,如我方率先不承認經裁定認可確定之對岸民事確定裁判有既判力,對岸亦得採相應措施,則相互報復之結果,對兩岸人民權益影響不小,另自賽局理論而言,我方並無拒絕承認既判力以逼迫彼岸先承認我方確定民事裁判具有既判力之必要性,蓋因大陸法制及法院實務,早已承認經認可之我方民事確定裁判具有既判力。

Does a fixed civil judgments rendered in Mainland China, although recognized by Taiwanese courts through a fixed verdict, actually have effect in Taiwan? Taiwan Supreme Court judgment (96) Tai Shang Tzu No.2531 (2007) and (97) Tai ShangTzu No.2376 (2008) said no" with no exceptions, due to the absence of explicit expression in the legislation regarding this issue. However, these two judgments do not reflect opinions of legal scholars and actual judicial practice in Taiwan. For example, a legal loophole exists in Article 74 of Act Governing Relations between People of the Taiwan Area and Mainland Area that complicates the issue. Additionally, it is also necessary to analogize Article 402 of Civil Procedure Code to affirm the final and conclusive effect in certain circumstances. Also, based on the essence and nature of res judicata, where there is procedural protection of due process, there is also res judicata. Furthermore, from viewpoint of judicial assistance and reciprocity, if Taiwan courts deny the final and conclusive effect of all Chinese fixed civil judgments, according to game theory, Mainland China's courts may take reprisal measures, thus significantly affecting the wellbeing of people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait.